• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

South Korea to build "Light Carrier" LPX-II

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
456
Points
880
At 30-40,000 DWT, it basically a Handymax sized ship. We can only dream of such things.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/10/uk-naval-industry-eyes-technology-transfer-for-south-koreas-lpx-ii-project/
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
24
Points
430
RoK actually has a real shipbuilding industry--gov't supported from start but actually good at what it does.

Mark
Ottawa
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
162
Points
630
MarkOttawa said:
RoK actually has a real shipbuilding industry--gov't supported from start but actually good at what it does.

Mark
Ottawa


I agree. 

I don't know much about shipbuilding at all (I realized after following the shipbuilding theads on here, and reading what people like Underway have contributed, that building a ship isn't quite as simple as I once thought) - but is part of what makes their shipbuilding industry more globally competitive is the currency conversion?

Paying workers in Korea must be significantly lower than paying workers in Canada?  Even with respectable wages for both, would the currency conversion not work in Korea's favour, and hence lower their cost & ability to price ships at a lower cost compared to us? 
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
59
Points
530
While the concept may have a foreign naval market but it would not be viable for the ROK, other to make a big fat target for the North. Put the money into more aircraft maybe more F16's ,F18's and F35's.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
707
Points
860
MilEME09 said:
I wonder how much it would be if we asked for one too?
The Nat'l shipbuilding strategy won't let that happen.

See also: Mistrals.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
456
Points
880
Don't think Mistrals would be compatible with the F35, I think you need to go with a Canberra Class at the minimum. The nice thing about the Mistrals is the design already incorporates ice strengthening (something I am sure the Egyptians appreciate). I think the Mistrals (21,000DWT) are quite doable for Canada and a proven design. We could transfer two more of the planned AOP's to the CCG to help with the manning of two Mistrals. That would allow us a lot of flexibility in the Arctic and overseas.   
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
dapaterson said:
The Nat'l shipbuilding strategy won't let that happen.

See also: Mistrals.

I too have also read that the NSS is designed as much to keep certain ship designs on the roster as it is to prevent money being spent on other new build things, such as HADR ships, LPD and most annoyingly new submarines.

In addition, the RCN does not have the shore and training based infrastructure to support more than what it currently has. Scaling back is the future, not up.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
162
Points
630
tomahawk6 said:
While the concept may have a foreign naval market but it would not be viable for the ROK, other to make a big fat target for the North. Put the money into more aircraft maybe more F16's ,F18's and F35's.


That's a good point T6, and solid logic.  But, conversely, their airfields are also big fat targets for the North.  Big fat targets whose locations are known, and don't move.

A light carrier does give them the ability to have aircraft on a moving platform that the North MAY not be able to locate right away, depending on how quickly their intel comes in.


It also gives South Korea the ability to contribute a light carrier for tactical or humanitarian purposes throughout the rest of SE Asia, while continuing to provide stable work for their shipyards - which are quite top notch.


My money is between buying more aircraft, or having the ability to stick 20 of them on a ship that the North may not be able to take out in a first strike scenario, they'll go with buying the light carrier.


:2c:
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
59
Points
530
CBH99 said:
That's a good point T6, and solid logic.  But, conversely, their airfields are also big fat targets for the North.  Big fat targets whose locations are known, and don't move.

A light carrier does give them the ability to have aircraft on a moving platform that the North MAY not be able to locate right away, depending on how quickly their intel comes in.


It also gives South Korea the ability to contribute a light carrier for tactical or humanitarian purposes throughout the rest of SE Asia, while continuing to provide stable work for their shipyards - which are quite top notch.


My money is between buying more aircraft, or having the ability to stick 20 of them on a ship that the North may not be able to take out in a first strike scenario, they'll go with buying the light carrier.


:2c:

Same might be said of USAF and US Army assets. In any war we might see 50000 commandoes on the loose.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
162
Points
630
tomahawk6 said:
Same might be said of USAF and US Army assets. In any war we might see 50000 commandoes on the loose.


Very true.

In any conflict between North & South Korea, stationary targets such as bases will be targeted and I believe hit 'en masse' by both sides.

North Korea using it's massive amount of artillery, already targeted at Seoul and valuable military targets.  South Korea using artillery & air strikes.



Either way, if war broke out between North & South, it would be an absolute blood bath on both sides, especially in the opening days. 
 
Top